Join Us on FB

EVENTS

Pushing to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape

Reacting to this has been on my to-do list for about a week now. I thought I’d just comment on it during Saturday’s Non-Prophets, but it got canceled, so I guess I’m blogging it instead.

Personhood amendments are constitutional amendments that declare that human life begins at conception, no matter what the circumstances. This human life — no matter what stage of development, including a zygote — has constitutional rights. Terminating the development of a fertilized human egg is akin to murder under personhood amendments. Generally, under personhood amendments, the circumstances of the pregnant women are irrelevant because the fertilized egg has a constitutional right to life.

…

In an effort to promote its cause, Personhood Mississippi has started a “Conceived in Rape” tour featuring Rebecca Kiessling, who says she was conceived by rape and was slated for abortion. Kiessling states on her website,

Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”? It’s like saying, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life “except in cases of rape” because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don’t put a face to this issue — for them abortion is just a concept — with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.

In reply, some have said to me, “So does that mean you’re pro-rape?” Though ludicrous, I’ll address it because I understand that they aren’t thinking things through. There is a huge moral difference because I did exist, and my life would have been ended because I would have been killed by a brutal abortion. You can only be killed and your life can only be devalued once you exist. Being thankful that my life was protected in no way makes me pro-rape.

The thing is, calling the question “ludicrous” doesn’t actually put it outside the realm of discussion, it’s just an attempt to poison the well.

Trying to make the fetus legally a person is a tactic they’re using in order to do an end-run around the fact that most people don’t think it is one in reality. Yes, they want to convince everyone that a fetus is equivalent to a person with constitutional rights, but appealing to the fact that it is would be begging the question.

A few months ago I wrote some hypothetical questions about what constitutes “potential life.” These were some thought experiments of mine which revolve a time traveler preventing a person’s birth, asking basically: In which of these cases has the time traveler committed murder? Are you murdering someone by preventing their parents from having sex? Are you murdering potential siblings by allowing a person to be born, knowing that if he hadn’t been then his parents would otherwise have had other, different kids?

Naturally, some people dismissed the post as pointless because “time travel isn’t real.” Well, sure. But neither is the imaginary alternate universe that Rebecca Kiesling proposes, in which Rebecca Kiesling was never born. In this universe right here, circumstances have caused Rebecca Kiesling to be alive today, and no amount of hypothetically retroactive changing of the rules can alter her existence unless time travel becomes a reality. So if we’re refusing to accept alternate universe scenarios, we can’t reasonably discuss whether Rebecca “shouldn’t have been born”; we can only discuss whether we should force mothers now to bear a rapist’s baby that isn’t a person yet.

The way that Rebecca has framed the issue is, of course, emotionally manipulative. On purpose. She says that she hears people saying “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” Sounds pretty rude, doesn’t it? But let’s just push back the question to the circumstances that caused her birth in the first place. I wish her mother hadn’t been raped, because I’m against rape. It is no less valid to frame that opinion as “If I had my way, you would never have existed.”

Putting side effects in personal terms can easily be used to make the audience feel like the person is a real jerk, when in both cases their primary concern is a goal of preventing undesirable suffering. Being anti-rape, it’s “I sure wish somebody would have stopped that guy from forcing your mom to have sex with him.” Being pro-choice, it’s “Since your mom was unfortunately raped, I hope that she retains the option to spare herself the emotional trauma of having to bear a rapist’s baby.”

Whether those two desires are actually different from each other completely revolves on the not settled philosophical matter of whether a blastocyst with no brain function or nervous system is distinct in any important way from a sperm and an egg that never combined in the first place. And that’s a matter worth arguing about, but it shouldn’t be “settled” by the minority ramming their religiously-motivated answer through as law.

Comments

When discussing evolution, Christians often say that life could not have evolved from a single cell because life–especially human life–is far too complex to come from something as simple as a single cell. “Impossible!” they shout.

When discussing abortion, Christians often say that life starts at conception–which is a single cell. “Life starts at a single cell and we must protect it all all costs by passing laws outlawing all abortion–and perhaps common birth control methods–protecting that cell!” they shout.

I’m not a biologist, but it is my understanding that a fertilized egg is a single cell upon conception.

“or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. It is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—which combine to form the single diploid cell.”

But also in answer to the question, creationists generally do acknowledge that a single cell is already a complex species, which is why Michael Behe talks so much about the impossibility of microbiological components evolving.

Even if I start with the assumption that a fetus is a person with a right to life, I’m still pro-choice.

If I were in dire need of a kidney to survive, and my mother was the only compatible match, my personhood wouldn’t grant me the right to take her kidney without her permission. If it was her fault that I needed the transplant, I would still need her permission.

The right to life is not the right to use another person’s body in order to survive. A fetus might have the right to live. That doesn’t translate to the right to use a woman’s uterus without her permission.

Creationists do say that life at conception is “human life”, but that’s just because it is convenient for them to do so since they are already against abortion for religious/political reasons. They are trying to smash together scientific knowledge with their religious convictions (or political convictions)…and the science doesn’t support their position any more than simply asserting, “My religion/politics is to be against abortion.”

It’s true that a zygote, even as a single cell, has all the blue prints of a human being. But so do many cells in grown humans. Even the DNA of a dead person has all their human DNA. Should we protect the rights of dead people also?

The science just isn’t compatible with a whole host of religious assertions. As Sam Harris and others have said, there are people (in addition to other organisms) called “chimera” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) )which start off as two zygotes that become fused into one organism. If the soul enters at conception (or if, indeed, “human life begins at conception, no matter what the circumstances…[ ]…no matter what stage of development, including a zygote”) then you must have “two people in one”, or two souls in one. Do such people get two votes at the ballot box, then?

Conversely, twins start out as one zygote and split into two. Are they also “one person” as they started as a single person (according to the people pushing these laws) with “one soul”, or did their soul not enter them until the zygote split just to make the supernatural work with the science? (And if one is convicted of murder, are BOTH murderers, since they are “one person” per this definition of “personhood” at conception? Do they only get half a vote at the ballot box each?)

Reality just doesn’t work with the claims of those who want “life to begin at conception”.

And no one will ever REALLY want to convict a woman of murder for taking birth control that stopped a zygote from developing (or convicting them of manslaughter for taking a medication that caused an early miscarriage while being unaware that they were pregnant).

I was born pre-Roe-v.-Wade and was adopted by my parents from a Catholic agency. In the mid-60’s, there were so many unwanted babies at these places people were practically tripping over them, and I got a really good deal out of the thing, I think, considering what a cool set of parents chose me. I have on occasion gotten hit with “Aren’t you glad you weren’t aborted?” Well, sure — but if I had been I’d hardly be in a position to complain, or to fault my birth mother had she been able legally to make the choice at the time. Nor would I wish that choice taken from her.

The anti-choicers are going about it all wrong with these “personhood” laws and such. Or at least, they would be if their true goal was to prevent unwanted pregnancies and save the widdle babies. If that were actually their goal, they’d be promoting proper contraceptive use and comprehensive sex education with nearly as much fanaticism as they attack Planned Parenthood. The real goal of the anti-choice movement is to punish sinners for engaging in any form of sex that involves anything other than married Christians trying to create new Christians. It’s about dictating the behaviors of other adults, not saving lives. If they gave a shit about life, they wouldn’t be exactly the same group of people on television cheering the idea of uninsured Americans keeling over dead of untreated illnesses.

I remain of the option that rights only come with responsibilities. A fetus can have no reasonable responsibilities, so it can have no rights. In the same way, small children’s individual rights are limited or deferred to the parents until they can be assumed to be able to take responsibility (even if only in a crude age system method). A criminal who abuses rights and shows they are not being responsible gets their rights taken away.

It is also kind of funny that the rights of these zygotes are not discussed too much after they are actually born as children. Full medical coverage for every child that is born, “no matter the circumstances”? Any medical procedure that will save the life of a child should be mandatory even if the parents cannot pay for it? Suddenly that becomes crazy socialist talk.

“And no one will ever REALLY want to convict a woman of murder for taking birth control that stopped a zygote from developing (or convicting them of manslaughter for taking a medication that caused an early miscarriage while being unaware that they were pregnant).”

I am very glad you were lucky to have great adoptive parents and led/are leading a happy life.

As for if you had been aborted (in an alternate universe sort of way), I imagine your adoptive parents would’ve adopted a different kid (can’t be the same kid, since you’re not available).

A different kid, who also exists in our universe. And in our universe he was unable to be raised by your adoptive parents and probably did/does not lead as happy a life. An unlucky kid who could easily have been you if some other kid had been born to fill your current spot instead.

This is why I get irked by how the option to give a baby up for adoption is so easily given as supposedly the “kinder” thing to do rather than abortion. Unless an adoptive family is searched for ahead of time, this is a crapshoot. The ones already born and with the capacity to yearn for love should be given priority.

I can see these “personhood” amendments being used to control any/every aspect of women’s lives – it’s been creeping in ever since passage of laws that allow for prosecution of a pregnant woman for endangerment for taking narcotics, and prosecution for murder (of the foetus) when violence causes miscarriage or a pregant woman is killed.

If the zygote is a person deserving equal protection under the law, what’s to prevent the limitations on women that would provide full protection of any possible zygote that might be forming in her reproductive organs at any time in her life from menarche to menopause? Can she be allowed to scuba dive? Drive? Be a smoke-jumper? Gymnast? Must there be an examination of the contents of her menstrual flow (to make sure no “person” has died under suspicious circumstances)?

There’s a really nice question to present to these people who say that a zygote/embryo/whatever should have the same rights as a fully formed human being since it -is- a human being. Courtesy of user “captain howdy” (I think it was he, at least) at Ray Comfort’s blog:

“Imagine being in a building when a fire breaks out. You can save either a terrified, screaming 2-year old girl OR a plate of 1000 frozen zygotes. Which do you choose, and why?”

Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”?

I think my mother should have been able to abort me. I don’t find it insulting and I am happy she didn’t. Get over yourself.

If I take a 16 cell blastocyst, which they consider a human life, and split it into two balls of 8 cells, have I harmed a person or, by creating identical twins, have I created a new life? If I join them back together have I killed one person? If I destroy a 16 cell blastocyst I, by their logic, kill one person, but if I first separate them into 16 cells have I murdered 16 persons?

When iron age deontology meets 21st century science the outcome is always insane justifications for illogical and/or contradictory positions.

Well, SOMEONE might WANT to convict a woman for such things, but even among anti-choicers there aren’t many people like this. If we ever got to a point where enough people demanded such laws, and such laws were therefore passed…

What I’ve always wondered about people who insist that a foetus/zygote/embryo is fully human and deserving of full human rights from the point of conception, is why conception? Why draw the line there? Is that not as arbitrary a place to draw the line than any other? Why not consider every time an unfertilised egg passes through a woman’s system to be murder? Why not mourn the loss of millions of potential babies every time a man ejaculates and it doesn’t result in pregnancy?

My mum had the option to abort me. She didn’t. I’m glad to be alive, but had she aborted me then I wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t be able to care. I never would have existed, and thus wouldn’t be able to be upset by the concept of not existing. I’m glad that she had the option then and I’m glad that I have it today.

By saying that women shouldn’t have the right to terminate, rape or otherwise, they’re saying the rights of women are less important than the rights of the foetus/zygote/embryo/non-person inside them, and I struggle to see how so many people can be of the opinion that a pregnant woman should have to carry to term and give birth, no matter what, and not realise that that completely strips women of so many rights. Perhaps they do realise and don’t care, which is even more depresssing.

If a couple wants a baby but the woman is unable to carry a child (for some reason) and they decide to hire a surrogate and the surrogate lets say leaves a slippery puddle in front of her stairs by accident (or a banana peel if you’re into cartoons), doesn’t address it for one reason or another, and then ends up slipping on it, falling down the stairs, and miscarrying, is the surrogate responsible for negligent wrongful death?

I’m sure someone has thought of this before, but this was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the article. I’m not sure if this particular case is that important, but its always important to try to anticipate all the reasonable outcomes of any law proposed before going forward with it.

Let the anti-abortion crowd come up with feasible way to save the fetus, through artificial wombs or transplants. As long as it was funded, I doubt many mothers would refuse the option if it was available.

Basically one person’s rights finish where another’s starts.
Either the foetus is a human or it’s not. If it is, to kill it is murder. If it’s not, then no problem.
But if it’s not human, what is it exactly?

The entire argument is preposterous. If I we’re to have an abortion, it wouldn’t hurt the zygote’s feelings (or nerve endings!). The only actual person affected physically by the decision to abort or nurture the zygote is the woman bearing it.
As far as “my mom could have aborted me,” well, yeah, that’s true of every human. I mean gosh, if things weren’t the same, it would all be different! It’s as true for each living human as it is for the entirety of earth’s evolutionary history.
Looks like someone needs to spend time in the Get Over Yourself chair.

I hesitate to type this because it gives the impression that I’m way too extreme (see caveat below). But my request to Ms. Kiessling would be: “please tell us your earliest memory”…

We all know there’s a limit to how much time could pass between the rape and the fertilization. But as a human being at that instant you surely must remember the agony your mom must have been feeling at the time?
No? You can’t remember that? But _you_ were there!

(here’s the caveat): I’m definitely opposed to the idea of defining “personhood” in terms of “1st memories”. After all: “not enough cells to have memories” obviously doesn’t count. Or does it?! Actually, I think it does!

Well, i have a question, if the zygote is alread a human being, that means that we can force people to carry another human being against theyr will, if the life of this being depends on it?

So, if i need a blood transfusion, could i force someone to give me theyr blood? would that be the same? since i would be a human being that need another person to survive?

And lets say, that a woman is judged by this “crime” of killing a zygote, wich would be the punishment? 30, 40 years of jail? could a woman go to the death roll for making a abortion, and with her, all the people that helped her to do it?

Religion wants to use people’s sex lives to induce guilt. Everybody has or wants sex, so it works for everybody. By saying sex is bad and immoral, guilt is induced that can only be lifted (temporarily) by turning to the religion. By condemning abortion the anti-choice movement is trying to induce guilt in the pregnant mother, and EVERYONE ELSE. Just by speaking out against abortion they are following their hidden agenda of trying to get people to turn to religion for guilt reduction and moral guidance. It’s all about advocating the cult.

The way that Rebecca has framed the issue is, of course, emotionally manipulative. On purpose. She says that she hears people saying “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” Sounds pretty rude, doesn’t it? But let’s just push back the question to the circumstances that caused her birth in the first place. I wish her mother hadn’t been raped, because I’m against rape. It is no less valid to frame that opinion as “If I had my way, you would never have existed.”

Brilliant point

“Imagine being in a building when a fire breaks out. You can save either a terrified, screaming 2-year old girl OR a plate of 1000 frozen zygotes. Which do you choose, and why?”

It’s a torment law, it’s just meant to inconvenience targeted demographics or allow the police to harass people and lock them up for a weekend. It’s just like how some states still do “Bag a Fags” and arrest gays at meet up points even thought hey know they’ll just be released on Monday. The police don’t’ get any punishment for it and they’re allowed to basically humiliate and torment the undesirables.

Or like “Disorderly Conduct” aka “You’re under arrest because I feel like it”

That our police have the power to use terrorism tactics is a real problem in this country

I disagree. These laws are most certainly enforceable and at the least will have a devastatingly chilling effect on the professionals which are needed for women to exercise choice (you know, without risking their lives). Here’s an interesting visual

Personally, I think abortion should not be allowed as a form of birth control. If you were too lazy to use contraceptives or if you just happen to be one of the 1%, that’s your fault. You knew the risks going in. In the cases of rape or dangerous pregnancy it should be allowed. I have no problem with all of the waiting periods, counseling and education requirements. I think the woman should be well-informed. I’m a man so I’ll never know, but I would imagine that for some people having an abortion could be as traumatic as carrying a child of rape.

Kudos to a woman who can truly love a child begotten of such a terrible thing as rape, but not everyone will handle it the same.

“If you were too lazy to use contraceptives or if you just happen to be one of the 1%, that’s your fault. You knew the risks going in.”

The problem is, most of the people that dont use contraceptives are those who didnt get education about sex and how to prevent pregnance.

Religious people gona say that the person was lazy or irresponsible, but thats its the result of poor education.

Another big problem is, if the person didnt have the education, most likeliy, they dont have the money to raise a child, or they alread have too much childs, or are too young, making the family have too go trough with that, you would be punishing the family and the child, and in the most idiot way possible.

Also, abortion in the begining of the pregnancy its has very litle danger to the woman, and if a woman decide to make an abortion (in any time of the pregnance), shes doing the responsible thing, because she know she wouldnt have the conditions to raise a child.

And how the 1% of “technical problens” should fall on the person as responsible?

So, is a pilot is going to land his plane, and he have 1% of chance mechnical problens, its hes fault if he crashes? Or the fault belongs to the person that made the “plane”?

The only methods that offer >99% efficacy are implants, IUDs and sterilization, which aren’t appropriate/accessible for every woman. This information ought to be part of the information offered to everyone, but I’m betting this is the first time you (and maybe others here) have seen it.

As for the waiting periods and “information” requirements states have mandated, they are designed to be obstructive and demoralising in pursuit of a specific anti-abortion agenda. Waiting periods can mean a woman has to book extended time off work and seek accommodations for several days, and might well put an abortion out of reach for many working class and poor women. Graphic depictions of extremely rare procedures (likely NOT the procedure the woman will undergo) serve to terrify the woman into a fear-based decision; they are NOT meant to inform. Is there any other medical procedure for which the government mandates the patient must watch a film of a worst-case scenario before giving informed consent?

I suspect your objections are based on an assumption that women who seek abortions are irresposible and promiscuous. It may surprise you to discover that many of the women you know have had abortions (4 or 5 of every 10 women have)!

Personally, I think abortion should not be allowed as a form of birth control. If you were too lazy to use contraceptives or if you just happen to be one of the 1%, that’s your fault. You knew the risks going in. In the cases of rape or dangerous pregnancy it should be allowed. I have no problem with all of the waiting periods, counseling and education requirements. I think the woman should be well-informed. I’m a man so I’ll never know, but I would imagine that for some people having an abortion could be as traumatic as carrying a child of rape.

I too was conceived by rape, in this case he was also my mother’s husband. And yes, that counts as rape too, even though most religious people don’t seem to think so…
Anyway, of course my mother had the right to abort me, and obviously, I wouldn’t have been here to give a rat’s ass. I am happy to be alive, but all the embryos that never made it, for whatever reason, I don’t think they’re mourning their lost chance to live, because then they would be alive somehow… Mind…boggled… Oh wait, are they not in heaven? The place where we should aspire to be? Well, then I guess they’re even better off that way, without having to go through a difficult and hard life, with people wishing them dead! Hurray! And their sinful aborting mothers will not even come back to haunt them there! Double hurray!
In conclusion: Ms. Kiessling is a whiny selfcentered idiot, and now she can cry because that truly is an insult I hope. It’s not about YOU, dimwit, and people wishing YOU dead, it’s the value of your mother’s free will and having a say about her own life!
These are the people that would rather have women try to abort using coathangers and stuff, risking a defected but still alive baby, or damaging or even killing themselves in the process…
Again, yay for religious “morality”!
(ps: sorry for spelling mistakes, English is not my native tongue)

A fetus is not a person…yet, it is a FETUS. There are states trying to pass laws allowing a woman to die, rather than ending a pregnancy when the woman’s life is threatened by the pregnancy (as in the case of the woman with pulmonary HTN causing a furor a couple of years ago) this is appalling. They would rather leave 4 children motherless, and a man without his wife, than end a pregnancy.

Much as I hate to ‘poison the well’, do we know this woman was actually a product of rape? Fervent proponents of an idea are not above creating a backstory to fit their evangelical fundamentalist views.

I really can’t see why that would make the slightest bit of difference to the general argument about whether we should or should not force a woman to carry her rapist’s baby. And since it wouldn’t make much difference, I can’t see why they would bother putting up a fake when it would be just as easy to post an ad saying “We are looking for a pro-life woman whose mother was raped to be our spokesperson.”

I don’t see why abortion can’t be used as a form of birth control. Does it not control births?

In Russia and other cold countries, this was a common practice, if I remember my Soviet History lessons correctly. What other options are there, once it’s too late to prevent implantation, to prevent an unwanted birth?

And why is “too lazy too use contraceptives” offered as the dividing line? Is it OK to get an abortion if you were too stupid, drunk, clumsy, unable to read the Chinese pictographs/the Engrish translation on the contraceptive box? Isn’t “lazy” some kind of pejorative slur, meant to further shame the hapless slut who got knocked up all by herself?

Akin to pyrobryan’s line of thinking, should a parachutist not be allowed to use their emergency backup parachute when the main one fails, as they should have known the risks before jumping out of the plane– too bad so sad if they were the 1% whose main chutes fail?

P.S. I join the chorus to say that I was an unexpected pregnancy for my young, unmarried hippie pro-choice parents, and I fully support– then as now– my mother’s right to choose, either way, over what goes in or out of her body.